Will Donald Trump protect religious freedom?

[Guest]

Has Trump stated how he feels about religious freedom? And what's his feelings on Mormons? 

[Guest MormonGator]

It's important for all of us to remember that he can't rule by fiat. He doesn't have the power of a CEO, who can rule by fiat even though most don't lead that way. His supporters don't get that. They think Trump can just wave a wand and get things done. It doesn't work that way. 

He has said that he'll be much more open to religious freedom than the previous administration was. Hopefully he will appoint judges who are as well. His feelings towards LDS are totally irrelevant. He can't round us up or ban our beliefs. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest Godless]

Religious freedom never struck me as being a major concern of his. He recently stated that he will respect the law regarding gay marriage as established by the SCOTUS (I wonder if he feels the same way about Roe v. Wade).

And no, I don't think he has a particularly high opinion of Mormons. That doesn't matter much, though. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Godless

[Guest]

Something I always find interesting is I believe if Jesus ran for polticial office He'd run as an Independent and not as a Republican or Democrat based on how He views the world.

[Just_A_Guy]

Trump has committed to sign--I forget its name, but as I understand it it's basically a bill that commits to uphold religious freedom vis a vis "discrimination" claims.  That said, Trump has been all over the map on a lot of things; and he certainly seems squishy on LGBTQ issues.  His buddy Steve Bannon seems to take a pretty dim view of Mormons and Catholics in particular (see, e.g., here); and I've seen multiple Trumpkins in other fora suggest that Mormons should never, ever be allowed near political office again.

So, bottom line: . . . . we'll see. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

President-Elect Trump has told clergy he would like to get rid of the Johnson Amendment (Lyndon Baines) prohibiting 501c organizations (such as churches and clergy) from endorsing political candidates. He wonders why the average person walking along a street has more freedom than a minister, priest, or bishop. Most pastors and people I talk to are very uncomfortable with churches endorsing candidates. I doubt I would do so. Then again, why should Caesar get to prohibit it? This kind of thinking makes me hopeful that our soon-to-be President really might be a friend of religious liberty.

[Guest Godless]

6 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Then again, why should Caesar get to prohibit it? 

The most common argument I hear is that it's because churches don't pay taxes. No taxes = no political involvement. Also, the Constitution prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another, and it makes sense to make the rule work both ways, imo.

[unixknight]

29 minutes ago, Godless said:

The most common argument I hear is that it's because churches don't pay taxes. No taxes = no political involvement. Also, the Constitution prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another, and it makes sense to make the rule work both ways, imo.

The reason churches are tax exempt is that it's understood that through charitable work such as providing food for the poor, various monetary welfare programs, etc. Churches are carrying their share of the load, as it were.  (This, by the way, is why I think the system for establishing a church for tax purposes needs an overhaul.  It's much too easy the way it stands.  The John Oliver show did it just to make the point.)

So that being the case, I see no reason why religious leaders should be barred from expressing a political stance, though I do agree with PC that it's better if they generally refrain from doing so. 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

Has Trump stated how he feels about religious freedom? And what's his feelings on Mormons? 

When you take everything he's said as a whole, he hates us to the point that he just doesn't care to do anything good or bad for us.

While being left alone would be great on many levels, that also means that if we are unjustly persecuted by mobs or by government, he just wouldn't care to do anything about it.

[prisonchaplain]

@Godless  Churches do pay property taxes. They just don't pay on the donations they take in--just like any other non-profit.  @unixknight  One other aspect is that, despite the official neutrality of government towards religion, our founders did assume that religious support was an inherent social good.  

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Godless  Churches do pay property taxes. They just don't pay on the donations they take in--just like any other non-profit.  @unixknight  One other aspect is that, despite the official neutrality of government towards religion, our founders did assume that religious support was an inherent social good.  

Side Note: While churches pay property tax, here in Texas, they pay a lower rate than other property owners.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

The most common argument I hear is that it's because churches don't pay taxes. No taxes = no political involvement. Also, the Constitution prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another, and it makes sense to make the rule work both ways, imo.

Government is also not supposed to favor one person over another.  So, any individual should not favor a political party or candidate either?

[pam]

It's also one of the reasons why the owner of this site can't take a political stand.  It would hurt their 501C status.  Though I have to admit, some of the articles they publish come pretty close to the line to giving the perception of a political stand.

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, pam said:

It's also one of the reasons why the owner of this site can't take a political stand.  It would hurt their 501C status.  Though I have to admit, some of the articles they publish come pretty close to the line to giving the perception of a political stand.

Sadly, I think that's inevitably the result when matters of morality become matters of politics.

[estradling75]

And I think while we are distracted with the Trump puppet theater... we are missing where the true power landed.  The Republican party got the majority of Congress... and their leader Paul Ryan, is experienced, knows what he is doing, has the support of his party, and has legislation prepped and ready to go.

Expect congress to pass/make new laws per their agenda... all they have to do is have Trump not get in their way.  Democrats only hope are Senate filibusterer or to work with Trump to convince him to veto.  But the democrats are too busy vilifying Trump and wishing for a do-over.  Historically Trump has been willing to work with/support the Democrats but they have to get over themselves to get there.

An unchallenged party power (either party) is not good for this country

 

 

[Guest]

Republicans have had all three before and they passed NOTHING that was part of the conservative agenda.  What makes you think this will change anything?

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Republicans have had all three before and they passed NOTHING that was part of the conservative agenda.  What makes you think this will change anything?

 Exactly. Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss.  

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Republicans have had all three before and they passed NOTHING that was part of the conservative agenda.  What makes you think this will change anything?

I did not say "Conservative agenda" I said "per their agenda" with the "their" referring back to the Republican Party (More importantly the Leaders and the Powers that Be)...  Those are not the same thing.  The Republican party likes to say they are conservative but they have not been in a every long time.

This whole thread is about the Puppet Theater of Trump and wondering what he might do... while ignoring that the real power never really went anywhere.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by estradling75

[prisonchaplain]

To refocus on religious liberty, I'm of the radical "classic liberal" semi-libertarian view that our founders intended to protect religion from the undue influence of government, and NOT the reverse. Religion, business, individuals, 'special interest groups' etc. were all to be free to present their case to government and to the courts of public opinion. The notion that government needs to be protected from religious pressure, or any lobbying 'of the people' is absurd, in my always humble opinion.

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Government is also not supposed to favor one person over another.  So, any individual should not favor a political party or candidate either?

The big difference is that government's sole purpose is to serve and represent the people. Therefore, it is in the immediate best interest of the individual to make informed decisions about political parties and candidates. And, unlike churches, individuals have their rights explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Apart from (non-discriminatory) protection from persecution as outlined by the Constitution, the government has no obligation to serve the interests of churches or any other religious institution. And even then, you could argue that the Constitution protects the church-goers, not the religious institutions themselves, if you really want to split hairs.

 

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Godless  Churches do pay property taxes. They just don't pay on the donations they take in--just like any other non-profit.

I get that. I just think there should be more accountability and scrutiny when it comes to church finances. I feel the same way about all non-profits, btw. And interestingly, non-profits are generally heavily scrutinized and regularly audited by the IRS.... with the exeption of churches, who enjoy special audit and financial disclosure protection for some reason. As unixknight pointed out, the process of creating a church, and the wall of tax protection that comes with it, is comically simple. Here is how the IRS, in their own words, defines churches. By that standard, I could start The Church of Humulus Lupulus, declare myself a pastor and my bar a place of worship, and boom, I now have a church federally-protected from IRS scrutiny.

FWIW, I realize that most churches genuinely engage in a lot of charitable work with the donations they receive from their congregations. But the way I see it, if you're a church (or any other 501c organization) that isn't "rendering unto Caesar", then Caesar has every right to tell you to stay out of his affairs.

 

Quote

 

One other aspect is that, despite the official neutrality of government towards religion, our founders did assume that religious support was an inherent social good.

Some of them also assumed that keeping church and state separate was an inherent social good, though it wasn't explicitly written into the Constitution. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Godless

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

The big difference is that government's sole purpose is to serve and represent the people. Therefore, it is in the immediate best interest of the individual to make informed decisions about political parties and candidates.

Agreed.

2 hours ago, Godless said:

And, unlike churches, individuals have their rights explicitly outlined in the Constitution. 

Not true.  The very first of all the rights of the Bill of Rights is that of freedom of religion.  And specifically, it is about establishments of religion.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That sounds pretty clear that the US government is not to tell any church what it can and can't preach.

Further, it goes on to explain that individuals are also protected in what they say regarding the exercise of their beliefs.

Quote

... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Thus far, I have not found you to be in the same camp as the FFRF (thank you).  But it is these two phrases that they seem to ignore when they make their claims about separation of church and state.

2 hours ago, Godless said:

 Apart from (non-discriminatory) protection from persecution as outlined by the Constitution, the government has no obligation to serve the interests of churches or any other religious institution.

Absolutely agree.  So, long as it is truly an even playing field.  The government has no other obligation to serve the interests of ANY organization, individual, party, group, corporation, lobby, special interest group, etc.  To give protections to some organizations while prohibiting the same to churches shows favoritism.  If you're going to restrict speech from churches, then restrict speech from ANY private organization.

When the government protects all but serves none, this is truly equal protection under the law for all.  That's all I'd ask.

2 hours ago, Godless said:

And even then, you could argue that the Constitution protects the church-goers, not the religious institutions themselves, if you really want to split hairs.

 Organizations of any kind are simply people coming together into a common interest. To ban an organization is to ban the people in that organization.  To restrict speech from an organization is to restrict speech from individuals in that organization.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Guest

[askandanswer]

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

They think Trump can just wave a wand and get things done. It doesn't work that way. 

You dare to deny the power of the Elder wand despite having already seen how it can be used to win elections??!! Those who ascribe Trump’s victory to cunning campaigning and a dependence on the deprived and depraved seem to have fooled by the falsity portrayed in the film that Harry broke the wand. The reality is that Harry sold the Elder wand to Trump to fund the reconstruction of Hogwarts, and to build a wall to keep out unwanted giants and all Trump had to do was to wave it, and win. Things DO work that way, as evidenced by the election result. No doubt, on being sworn in, Trump will immediately task the Secret Service, the FBI and the CIA to begin searching for the Invisibility Cloak and will get his engineers to commence constructing a new set of horcruxes – if he hasn’t done so already. Fortunately, for Latter-Day Saints, the High Priest wand trumps the Elder wand.

Edited November 16, 2016 by askandanswer

[unixknight]

3 hours ago, Godless said:

FWIW, I realize that most churches genuinely engage in a lot of charitable work with the donations they receive from their congregations. But the way I see it, if you're a church (or any other 501c organization) that isn't "rendering unto Caesar", then Caesar has every right to tell you to stay out of his affairs.

And what happens when Caesar's affairs start including telling Churches how to configure their bathrooms, what they can say at the pulpit, and threatening to cut off that 501c classification if they refuse to violate their own doctrines?

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Democrats only hope are Senate filibusterer or to work with Trump to convince him to veto. 

Maye not even the filibuster, where judicial nominations are concerned.  Reid and the Dems already deployed the "nuclear option" of removing the filibuster for lower-level judge nominations when they held the Senate back in 2013; and they had committed to doing the same thing with SCOTUS nominees if they took the Senate back this year.  Senate Republicans, having held on to their majority, aren't likely to be feeling particularly magnanimous at the moment.

4 hours ago, Godless said:

FWIW, I realize that most churches genuinely engage in a lot of charitable work with the donations they receive from their congregations. But the way I see it, if you're a church (or any other 501c organization) that isn't "rendering unto Caesar", then Caesar has every right to tell you to stay out of his affairs.

The thing is, 527s are also nonprofit; and their entire raison d'etre is to meddle in Caesar's affairs.  I'm with @Carborendum on this - if you want to tax the churches, Constitutionally there's probably nothing keeping you from doing it except that a) you have to treat them just like other nonprofit organizations that are secular by nature, and b) you shouldn't make tax-exempt status dependent on the entity's willingness to buy in to some pet political theory or social worldview.  If we aren't ready to start taxing the DNC and the RNC, we should probably leave the churches alone.  (Churches can be audited, by the way; but not as a matter of course--some high mucky-muck in the IRS has to have a reasonable belief that there is some monkey business afoot.)

[Blackmarch]

On 11/15/2016 at 8:45 PM, Godless said:

Religious freedom never struck me as being a major concern of his. He recently stated that he will respect the law regarding gay marriage as established by the SCOTUS (I wonder if he feels the same way about Roe v. Wade).

And no, I don't think he has a particularly high opinion of Mormons. That doesn't matter much, though. 

my fear either him or someone on his team getting too overzealous and creating an arrow that can be pointed in a different direction by successive presidents and their cabinets. his statements of mormons has waffled over time and seem more something to placate the local populace.